Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

As long as economists use measures for progress and performance that are based on money wealth more than on things like quality of life, happiness and the impact on the environment, there will be outcomes that are essentially wrong. I read engineering at Cambridge before economics and later qualifying as a Chartered Accountant. Amazing technology is now being used to make profits for companies and in turn this delivers wealth to owners, but technology also enables job destruction at levels never seen before the 1970s. If we used technology to improve quality of life and repair a degraded environment, there could be results that are a win-win-win, and all this discussion about rethinking Robin Hood would be redundant!

I am broadly in sympathy with Angus Deaton's concept of mutual insurance or what used to be called a social contract.
But I am puzzled by a few things. Angus says that "But deaths are had to explain away." But, unless I am mistaken, his study with Anne Case did not find that "deaths of despair" had risen among male workers (even though the absolute level is much higher). And the sharp increase among middle-aged women may largely be explicable in terms of an opioid epidemic. So, pending correction, I respectfully disagree that such deaths are hard to explain away.
My second puzzle is this. I had taken away from The Great Escape the impression that Angus believed that foreign aid had done more harm than good. If Robin Hood does not work globally, why does he think it will work in one country? I would like him to have addressed the moral hazards of Robin Hood policies and how we avoid them.

This is a great piece that reflects the recent raise of nationalism in various countries and inspires further thought.
Governments definitely need to pay closer look to the individuals that have been adversely affected by globalisation and the provision of quality basic services such as health and education should be a priority.
However, I do not understand what are the responsibilities that we are supposed to have with fellow citizens that we do not have with other people around the world. Being a citizen in a specific country is random. How do you define being a citizen (not by law but for the responsibility concept)? Someone that has lived in a country for generations? Someone that was born in a country? Someone that grew up in a country? Someone that works and pays taxes in a country? And leaving the blurry definition of citizen aside, apart from sharing a piece of land, paying taxes and choosing representatives, citizens do not share that much in common. Citizens of one country have different religion, traditions, and even language.
Why is the world turning towards citizens then and away from humanity?

What a lovely, thoughtful piece. When the Nobel committee chose Deaton, they chose wisely.

Deaton (and many others) suggest that there is a trade off between the 'remarkable feat of the fall in the number of poor people in the past 40 years from more than two billion to just under one billion' vs. 'the harm to 'some people in rich countries, as factories and jobs migrated to where labor is cheaper.'

I myself don't accept that such a trade off does in fact exist. Instead, there has been a deliberate choice made by elites in wealthy countries to adopt a set of policies that has left many worse off, and a lack of recognition of the need to move aggressively to implement policies that will address emerging issues that will contribute to further inequality, for example, in what is known as the platform or 'gig' economy.

In the last analysis, if globalization is to continue to be a viable project, there is going to be a need for a push on elites in both advanced, and in developing and emerging economies to share the benefits of globalization with their populations.

A hopeful sign is that since the 2008 crisis, those in the economics profession appear more open to the possibility that some of their thinking and emphasis needs rethinking, and aware that their analysis has been misused to distract and justify policies that deeply harmed some of those in wealthy countries.

This piece written by Deaton and the existence of Anne Case's work also give hope that those in the US who appear to be arguing that voters are rebelling due to concerns related to the changing racial and ethnic composition of US society (instead of due to economic distress) do not derail the adoption of policies needed to ensure shared prosperity and to rein in vested interests. If there is anything that might be said to be positive about the very sad Brexit referendum is that at least in the US it will underscore the link between disaffected voters, economic distress and globalization, and hopefully clarify thinking about the need to adopt both mitigating policies and policies that anticipate future pressures on the population at large from technology and globalization.

This type robbing the peter to pay Paul ism is also happening in India by way of excessive reservations. It all started with reservations in education and jobs for small percent for the people for a limited amount of time. Slowly politics crept in and now we have states like Tamil Nadu up to 70% reservations in college admissions and jobs. It has reached such an absurd extent that resevations are for less bright and more richer kids and brighter students from poorer families to do have any reservations (The opposite of vision of founding fathers). Not only the bright students loose out on opportunities, the sys tem is deprived of bright and dedicated folks. It also leads to a situation the less bright students developing an arrogant attitude towards all and institutions. Those who are willing to fight these evils stay on, while otters take flight to richer countries where there is higher premiums on their talents. This situation may be addressed by making reservations based on economic status and not on social status as it is now.

The first order of the day is to recognize the problem, not try to explain it away. Or even place blame, except to the limited extent needed to advance to a solution. Yes, we can blame the “elites” but “We,” the people, have allowed them to take control: In some measured and careful way that has to end.

The second concern, for me, is conflating or confusing the idea of “aid” (whether in the shape of weapons or cash) with “trade agreements.” As I see this, international aid is probably, in 80% of the cases, or maybe 100%, simply stolen by the elites in the recipient country. Or, perhaps even worse, it is used to oppress the poor in those countries. It is a pointless and wasted effort to continue to provide such aid.

Trade agreements are something entirely different in format, but in the end the benefit is probably about the same as foreign aid in terms of the end point for the majority of the benefits: 80% or more of the benefit probably goes the foreign elites. The problem is that the people LEAST benefitted are the citizens of the wealthy country making the trade deal. Yes, some products and services are, or may be thought to be, available to them at lower cost, but what good does that do if the party supposedly to be benefitted has no income?

The answer as I see it is to make no more trade deals without at the same time and as part of the action providing some off-setting and roughly equivalent amount in terms of domestic aid. If “we” are going to make a deal with Turkey, for example, to send them arms, then such an act needs to be tied to our domestic aims and actual, visible, domestic spending. Or if we want to aid some African or Asian nation, feeding or helping their poor, then provide an equal amount for our own domestic agenda.

In terms of what has been already done, and the havoc already underway, someone needs to evaluate the actual cost of such agreements. In a way this is even easier: we should be able to figure out how many “domestic” workers were displaced, and the impact of that displacement. That money needs to get back into the domestic economy by fixing roads, by enhancing government sponsored research, or even by subsiding health care.

Richard
This aid/loans to poorer countries may also come with a rider that requires the poorer country to buy hardware/technology from companies based in the donor country. This basically ensures that the loaned money is recycled to the rich in the donor country. At Least part ofthis recycled money should reach the poor in poorer countries.

Early in my career I used to live in the USA and had to return to India fro some family reasons. Now daughter lives there and we tried to live again in the Usa to be close to her but could not afford to do so. We are quite comfortanble in India but will be considered poor in USA and will be burden to our daughter. So I fully understand your point. Being poor in a rich country is being really poor.

Angus Deaton is right. When poor people in Western countries feel politically and socially abandoned the base for the Robin Hood principle is shrinking. But he's wrong insofar as he doesn't mention the political choices made by Western governments - dismantling of welfare systems, destructing trade unions, pampering the commanding classes of their economies and designing global trade and financial rules which favour the rich countries. The gap between Western wealth and developing countries' poverty or modest prosperity is still huge. And: Of the $ 135 billions development aid, Deaton is citing, only $94 billions arrive in developing countries and $62 billions are, according to the OECD, country programmable aid. The rest are the own transaction costs and large chunks of non-aid. Compared to the $887 billion GDP of the group of the Least Developed Countries, this seems to be quite a considerable amount. But given that only 20 percent of the development aid go to the LDC's, it's not really a Robin Hood-like redistribution.

I see claims like yours a lot. But I have yet been unable to document them -- at least with respect to welfare. It is a bit old (and my memory is a bit hazy), but I believe Dani Rodrik has found that social welfare outlays increased, rather than shrank, in response to globalization.
The rest of your story also smacks of conspiracy theory. No one destroyed unions -- they did that to themselves. Pampering governing classes is also a figment of your imagination. If the elites prospered it was not because of political manipulation but because (as Angus Deaton implies) they have been far more successful at navigating the currents of globalization.

"Charity begins at home" but given the fall of traditional nuclear families, fewer and fewer "homes" exist to provide support. One way to improve our domestic challenge is to increase the number and sustainability of traditional nuclear families. What other social unit is more important to the poor, the rich and the country overall?

Professor Deaton's concerns about the poor in the US are of course valid. I have a couple of comments. First: although the reason for the poverty of some of these people may be globalization, it seems to me that the apparent negative relationship (either more US poor, OR more poor elsewhere) Dr. Deaton is proposing is questionable. The only case in which it is strictly applicable is working class Americans who previously had factory jobs, who lost those jobs when factories were relocated overseas. That group can take advantage of the US Trade Adjustment Assistance, which helps workers in this condition to find jobs or to re-train. Second: if Dr. Deaton is particularly worried about white working class men, about whom there is good reason to worry, then the link with foreign aid is tenuous. These are people for whom in many cases an entire cultural adjustment is required to have a better chance in a globalized knowledge economy. Many of their children are making this step -- I teach them. Those who don't have education beyond high school need cultural help as well as simply finding jobs -- this is a hard job in today's America, and really has nothing to do with foreign aid. Number three: foreign aid is often problematic, goes into the hands of rich elites, does not help the poorest, etc. Yes --of course a thorough-going reform is necessary. But don't try to tie it to the problem of America's poor.

The following are worth reading -and the quotes from them
1. CIDA reconsidered http://www.cgai.ca//PDF/Reinventing%20CIDA.pdf
"Most foreign aid is spent in the donor country. About 80 per cent of CIDA staff are based in Ottawa, and staff people in the field have little authority to design and implement projects and allocate funds, the report says."
"This top-heavy system has perpetuated a system where our development assistance is slow, inflexible and unresponsive to conditions on the ground in recipient countries."

"Flows of wealth are overwhelmingly from poor countries to rich ones, and the chief function of foreign aid is as a tool of control.
Developing countries receive about $136 billion in aid from donor countries each year. At the same time, however, they lose about $1 trillion each year through offshore capital flight, mostly in the form of tax avoidance by multinational corporations. That’s nearly 10 times the size of the aid budget.
Because rich countries include debt cancellation as aid, it is only fair that we include debt service payments as part of the equation as well. Today, poor countries pay about $600 billion to rich countries in debt service each year, much of it on the compound interest of loans accumulated by rulers long since deposed. This alone amounts to nearly 5 times the aid budget. Using this metric, economist Charles Abugre calculates that the net flow of aid from the West to the Global South over the period 2002 to 2007 was minus $2.8 trillion. And that does not include the capital flight that I mentioned above.
There are many other flows of wealth and income that are being siphoned from the Global South that we need to take into account. For example, Action Aid recently reported that multinational corporations extract about $138 billion from developing countries each year in tax holidays (which is different from tax avoidance). This figure alone outstrips the global aid budget."

How does professr Deaton know the problem is globalization? Why not poor schools? Or soaring healthcare costs? Or the recession? Or something else? You need to diagnose the disease correctly before you start treatment.
Professor Deaton has often insisted that knowing what happens is not enough. You also need to know why. Here he apparently fails to live by his own standards.
I agree with the main point, though. The US should care more about its own poor.

If you haven't noticed a huge flow of jobs out of here because of globalization, you haven't been watching. Our work force has been made to compete with 3rd world countries and the republican party would love to do away with the minimum wage and environmental regulations to make it even more Darwinian.
Our aid to other countries is so little next to our GDP that it has almost no affect on this issue. Trade agreements do a lot more.

The problem is the people who benefit from globalization
are different from those who are harmed by it. For example,
Mexican immigration benefits farmers and meat packers
but costs those who provide social services like schooling
and health care. Those who gain should be taxed to pay
those who lose. Similarly those who support The
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) should be taxed on the
profits they make from it and this money should go to those
who are harmed by it. I'll leave it to the politicians and
economists on how to accomplish that.

Interesting read, but I found one main issue with your premise. Robin Hood only works when those that are taken from are taken care of. This isn't an issue of foreign aid or labor. This is an issue of a country so devoted to raging war that we can't take care of our own even though we do have the means. Foreign competition is not an excuse for the way we treat the poor and working class in our society. This is nothing new and it has little to do with Robin Hood policy and everything to do with greed.

In an interesting proliferation, the insidious "Caste System" seems to have permeated the most successful Economy the world has seen.
The Lords needs the Commons - and it is the Cardinals who invariably build the bridges that retails hope.
Geography allows Walls that separates the Lords from the Commons - but when it doesn't, then Religion is the opium.
Islands are either made by the Divine, or created by the Caste System.
Cross-border brotherhood perhaps allows the Islands to forge unusual unpredictable networks.
The Global Games that lubricated cross border brotherhood is not well researched.

When Europe cries foul, it is always because the Union creates Creditor and Debtor languages - the Castes.
When America cries foul, it is always because the Union creates Creditor and Debtor races - the Castes.
When the Lords give way to the Cardinals, it is because hope is better retailed by men of faith.
The Lords however always build bridges cross border, because the Cardinals often target the Lords.
The Commons find it impossible to build such bridges - as the Cardinals playing brokers, have their own agenda.

But the Author has pointed only the road that takes the Commons to the Bastille.
Without pointing out the road that takes the World to the House of Lords.
And when the Lords double up as Cardinals, the road goes Soviet.

In the end, the Truth is that Globalism takes Mankind higher.
Isolationist proclivities never the Trumps.

One small point that seems to be continually overlooked in the rush to blame globalization, and by extension trade, for job losses is the impact of technological innovation. A few weeks ago I read an article that claimed the US has permanently lost between 7.5 to 8.5 million jobs since 2000. Of this total, approximately 1 million were attributed to NAFTA and another 2 million to our trade imbalance with China. The remaining 4.5-5.5 million jobs were lost due to advances in process automation, robotics and related smart technologies. The article went on to estimate as many as 40 million more jobs will be lost over the next twenty years as technology evolves within the office automation, hospitality and services industries. I'd like to ask exactly how will that challenge be dealt with?

We quit looking and participating... like me... i went back to school for human services since that field will be overrun with clients with the coming greater loss of jobs... I have not participated in this economy for well over 5 years now (other then food & fuel) and there are millions doing exactly what I am doing... We are not working and refuse to work in this exploitative environment.

(1) Global labor will go into surplus, if it hasn't already.
(2) Human nature will not change regardless.
(3) Potential workers will become increasingly aware that they are involved in what is, for them, a zero sum game.

Ultimately, the labor surplus will have to be liquidated. How that happens will I think reflect (2) above. Rousseau or Hobbes, take your pick
and follow your choice to your own conclusions.

One "good news" scenario would be that after the surplus is eliminated, considering the high probability of a significant overshoot in the process, the species will find itself on the edge of another renaissance by way of a new labor shortage. Post-plague Europe in the 15th century kind of scenario.

Mother nature is, of course, a wild card in all of it, and may yet take a hand in fixing the problem.

Indefinite aid has devastated Nepal...aid's chief beneficiaries are aid agents themselves and ruling gangsters they abet while the people endure a lethal suffering.
Nepal's Lost Horizon:
http://realitysandwich.com/320179/nepals-lost-horizon/

I very much share your concerns. But do we really need to choose between the domestic poor and the poor abroad? According to updated Table A3 of Saez and Piketty's "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998" (QJE 118:1), the income share of the top 1% in the US has risen from 9 to 21 percent in the 1978-2014 period. Is not this change in the US income distribution a much larger headwind against the domestic poor than the US foreign aid trickle? And could not more egalitarian tax policies have avoided or reduced this huge skewing of incomes? And, speaking of taxes, must we fund education from local taxes, thereby entrenching existing socioeconomic inequalities? Can we not use the federal budget to help poorer districts offer equal educational opportunities to their children and youths?

What's in a name? Everything. Cosmopolitan prioritarianism should have been known by its true name: Cosmopolitan utilitarianism. And everything objectionable about the sort of interpersonal calculus that Prof. Deaton and his peers in the development economics profession engaged in would have been so much more transparent from the start.
Alas, Deaton has awakened too late, so late that I cannot say it is better than never. He and the other bien-passant scribblers have now set in the motion the forces of nationalism and xenophobia. These forces will prove profoundly destabilizing, I suspect. All of us may now be forced to suffer the consequences of the facile advocacy of the economics profession.

Good article. There definitely are degrees with which we accord rights and accept responsibilities within our families, communities and nations. Too often, rights and responsibilities have been elevated to "human" rights and "human" responsibilities long before we've established the institutional underpinnings for a fair distribution of both.

The general establishment has been staring at Trump and Sanders like they are some kind of monster that crawled out of the bog. This article cuts straight through to the cause. The cause is that Americans left their countrymen behind. History is full of this story - French Revolution, Germany between the Wars, Russia/China pre communism. Like cannot blame the man with the guillotine that France fell apart - likewise you cannot blame Trump (and Sanders) for capitalizing on a wave of anger stemming from a gutted middle class.

The article is interesting and thought provoking, but at the same time weak on two points:
1. Trading with other countries is presented as a conscious choice of Western elites, which is to a high degree not the case. The main causes for economic development in South-Asia and Eastern Europe are locally political. It is not Western elites that decided China & Eastern Europe were opening up to market economics, it was the obvious economic failure of communism. These were and are massive pools of labour opening up to trade and speedily developing, over which Western elites had absolutely nothing to say.
2. we see very similar political movements in Denmark, Netherlands, France, already for many years. But all three have very lavish social security compared with US. That breaks down the main 'white working class poverty' argument for what we see politically.

Mid-life morbidity and mortality data for U.S. looks bad in Deaton's paper, but the solution seekers to this malaise must not shun it away with rancor; globalization's biggest spoils lie in this crusade for declaring these as aberrations. No innovation is directed to this malady, no one ever wins any admiration for pointing this out. Such is the tragedy.

One way to reduce the problems discussed related to globalization is to add a balanced trade paradigm to the "free trade" rules. What this means is that the persistent trade surplus countries would be required to spend their excess export earnings to bring their current account roughly into balance as a long term average (or face trade sanctions). Spending the money internally could improve the economies and benefit the people in the surplus countries as it also benefits the deficit countries. The US and UK should take the lead in this, telling the persistent surplus countries that if they want continued relatively free access to sell into our markets they need to be willing to spend the income generated by their exports. The US trade deficit represents a large amount of US based demand that is not being supplied by US production. Eliminating this imbalance should go a long way towards reducing the impacts discussed in this article.

"When citizens believe that the elite care more about those across the ocean than those across the train tracks..."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that many citizens have decided that "the elite" (whoever they are) care for no one other than themselves?

And whether that's true or not, isn't the really important question not why people have lost their trust in the idea that democratically elected governments can advance "the common good"-- but what will be required to restore it?

The 2008 crisis in the conventional economy was nothing compared to the crisis in the "economy of trust" that has been developing for the last half century. We seem able to rescue banks and bankers -- but it's not so clear that we can rescue our representative democracies.

If all the nations sheared their excess resources (prompted by a true assessment of the needs of its citizens), all nations would be able to develop according to their own culture and not be penalized by always being behind the developed world. It is a question of resources, sharing resources instead of transferring money.

If the objective of this article is meant to shock and awe then it has achieved its purpose. But in doing so, it has succeeded mostly in addressing the symptoms of a problem (anger/indignation to increasing inequality in the U.S.) with the wrong diagnosis ((1) contribution of the US to development aid and (2) globalization).
The article states that the Robin Hood principles is meant as a redistributive measure to inequality by taking from the rich and giving to the poor – very well and good. But also goes on to say the poor in the US are now poorer because what was due to them is going towards the very poor in the rest of the world. Really?

1) The U.S. contributes less than 1% of its GDP to foreign aid
2) The top 1 % in the U.S. own 40 % of the national wealth in the U.S. while the bottom 80 % own just about 7%
3) Globalization, in as far as it transfers jobs overseas, is not a development agenda. It is a profit-making issue with the benefits accruing to owners of capital (Chances arguably being that those profiting from this endeavor are bound to be part of the top 1% in the US than they are bound to be the very bottom of the poor in the rest of the world)

While it is true that poverty rates have declined globally; it is quite misguided to think that the poor in the U.S. are worse off because the poorest of the poor in the world are ‘better off’.

Or maybe the problem, when you get right down to it, is the Merry Men -- us -- and the culture we've built for ourselves that puts a price-tag on everything and sees human existence (perhaps rightly) as a zero-sum game.

''Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.

Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]

The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.'' - http://socialtechnologies.com.au/germanys-jeopardy-could-the-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization/

There is nobody left in power who gives a damn for people who work for an hourly wage. Our so called "Elites" knowingly destroyed the working classes ability earn a decent living. All the while calling for the necessity of sacrifice and it was never them doing the sacrificing. Equality of opportunity is deader then the Dodo bird. The only people doing well out globalization is wallstreet and those already on top the rest of us, Well sacrifices must be made. Has for ethical if you can mention ethical and the so called "Elites of the western nations in the same breath you should take a better look around. The one thing our leadership in the west be it corporate, Government, or Academic lacks it is ethics and integrity. I realize your Nobel is economics doctor but I would suggest you look at history specifically the French revolution to see were we are headed. To many people with nothing left to loose watching our "Elites' break the law with impunity and get richer and richer, As for the rest of us? It's hard to get a grip on the porcelain while going in a circle

How the hell do people get these Nobel Prizes, from Obama and so on? There is no such thing as free money, if there was, the poor would not be poor and the rich would not be rich. And a message to PS, whoever cannot tolerate “Freedom of Speech” should close shop.

What is wanted is a fair and efficient way to transfer income from capital to labor in the rich countries. Here is an idea: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qJCdkd50kFib3VqagZdSZiPYSKNpZ83JQ6LteKbLWuE/edit?usp=sharing

'The globalization that has rescued so many in poor countries has harmed some people in rich countries... This seemed to be an ethically acceptable price to pay, because those who were losing were already so much wealthier (and healthier) than those who were gaining.'

Wonky thinking to say the least. So it is ethical for somebody to actively or passively decide corporations can impoverish citizens because there is a profit conduit and a worker elsewhere benefits. Leaving the impoverished worker somewhere between a freeman and a slave. This sounds very much like the defence of slavery.

Thomas Aquinas argued that slavery was not part of natural law, but nonetheless he defended it as a consequence of human sinfulness and necessary for the good of society. There are buckets of this sort of tripe throughout the ages

This is not ethics by any description, what it is is tripe, propaganda enabling corporate misconduct and misappropriation. The transfer of wealth present and future from citizens to corporations and overseas states who are totally uninterested in the impoverished left behind providing enough are left to sell stuff to

Excellent, thoughtful post. Within the ordinal ranking of priorities we all have, our first is looking out for the welfare of our fellow citizens.

This is especially evident in America, whose very foundation is based on the shared rights and responsibilities we have toward each other: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

All of these things we do for each other. It would be nice if we could do it for the rest of the world, but we can't. The sacred ties that once bound our union, to borrow a beautiful phrase from George Washington, are at risk, as a result.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.